|
|
 |
Reply
| | | From: ForeverAmber (Original Message) | Sent: 5/5/2005 11:32 PM |
Just pondering the ladies' man Edward IV & wondering....do we think there was any truth in his precontract with Eleanor Butler prior to his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville? |
|
 First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
It could very well be one of those "urban legend"-type stories that sound enough like truth to be true. E4 certainly seemed to be good at telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get what he wanted. Wasn't Eleanor Butler the daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury? Not someone a young Earl of March could love & leave, ya know?  The whole pre-contract thing does make sense: the reason why E4 wasn't in a hurry to marry later, then Eleanor Butler going into a nunnery. And if George of Clarence found out, it would make a more compelling reason why Edward was so firm about Clarence's guilt being worthy of execution. After all, Clarence had done worse before, then he was suddenly guilty & drowned in the famous butt of malmsey. For a man to whom family seemed to mean so much, he was awful quick to finally drop the bomb on brother George. OK, so now I've argued both sides, it could be untrue, just a legend based on Edward's character, and it could be true, based on George's and Edward's conduct later. Someone convince me!!! terri*lee |
|
Reply
| |
I sorta think it was true because that seemed to be Edward's MO with comely young widows LOL Only the Woodvilles were a might smarter than the Talbots it seems as they made sure it was legal & binding before allowing Elizabeth to slip into bed with him. What I find rather compelling is that Henry VII almost immediately arrested Bishop Stillington of Bath, the talebearer in this business, before repealing Titilus Regius & marrying Elizabeth of York. Obviously the Tudors thought it could be plausible as well. I'm wondering if, had this been sent to Rome instead of Parliament, if there wouldn't have been a papal loophole with Eleanor going into a nunnery & possibly invalidating any precontract. Eleanor also died in 1478, predeceasing both Edward & Elizabeth. If Elizabeth Woodville had entered into the marriage in "good faith", which I am sure she did, not knowing Edward had blithely promised himself elsewhere, the children could very well have been legitimicized after the fact, like the Beauforts were....but would they have had the right to the succession? Or wouldd only those offspring born AFTER Eleanor's DEATH have been considered legitimate? Which would have left Elizabeth of York & her brothers out in the cold. Hmmm.... |
|
Reply
| |
Even a verbal "contract" was valid (when it needed to be ). Remember all the hoopla about Catherine Howard's contract with Cullpepper (done in thier early teens). That was only verbal and only uttered between themselves, yet it was added to her other "crimes". Yet look at the treaties which were done with the formal betrothal of a Princess which never came to fruation and the parties eventually married others (Princess Mary (Henry VIII's daughter) Tudor is a good example). It depended on what future events happened (and who was in power), whether or not the "contract" (verbal or written) was to be considered legitamate or not. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-4 of 4
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to The Plantagenets
